User talk:Vometia
Hi, welcome to the Dragon Age Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Talk:Defending the Collective page. I hope that you will stick around and continue to help us improve the wiki. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Loleil (Talk) 13:09, 2009 December 3 Sten's Gifts Just because the Gift page doesn't have it as one of his preffered gifts doesn't mean he doesn't like it and as a matter of fact I gave it to him and netted 10 approval for it. : Fair enough, then. You could always update the gifts page to say something to that effect, too. :) --vom 01:39, December 9, 2009 (UTC) Edits. Just a small note to say you made some really nice edits, cleaning up the wiki and keeping it clean ;)--Mytharox 20:59, December 12, 2009 (UTC) : Thanks for the encouragement! Figured it was the least I could do while I was passing by, considering the amount of help the wiki's been to me. :) --vom 22:08, December 12, 2009 (UTC) Templates I like to pretend I am the person who is insane enough to understand Templates. Occasionally, I tell myself I'm wrong, but I invariably lose the argument. Could you describe what you need? --Tierrie 06:05, December 17, 2009 (UTC) : I was thinking something like ' ' coming out as: ::''Note: this is something you really need to know'' : since, rightly or wrongly, it's something that seems to crop up rather a lot in my assorted tidying sprees. I guess it comes down to whether or not it's preferable to manually format these things or to use a template, but I guess that's not my decision to make! --vom 06:12, December 17, 2009 (UTC) Re: Guidance about poor quality edits Just wondering what's the local policy about badly written edits such as this one? I think it's churlish not to give the author the benefit of the doubt in terms of trying to add something useful to the article, but it needs a complete re-write in order to bring it up to an acceptable minimum quality; I guess I'm struggling over whether it's more unreasonable to simply revert such an edit or to expect someone else to come along and rewrite it. Thoughts? --vom 17:56, December 18, 2009 (UTC) :If an edit contains relevant information, I'm willing to leave it there in the hopes it will be improved. Once pages become complete, I think we will be in a position to revert poorly worded edits more frequently. :Also, I see Mytharox has already said it, but I would like to say thanks for the work you've been doing too. It's very much appreciated, and very much needed (your avatar picture is fantastic too). Loleil 23:49, December 18, 2009 (UTC) ::That makes sense: I'll leave them be in that case. I guess in the meantime, if I spot something that's a bit iffy, it'll still help to correct spellings and so on even if the prospect of a full re-write doesn't appeal; it can always wait, as you say. ::And thanks to you both for the encouragement: nice to know that amongst my random drive-by edits, people see something useful going on. :) (And my avatar's joined in with the Christmas spirit in a rather literal sense!) --vom 00:39, December 19, 2009 (UTC) Munching I'm fixing that now, and digging through to find any formatting errors (such as you found on The Warden page). - Pwr905 03:08, December 19, 2009 (UTC) :Sorry for the terse response. Had already noticed the format errors, so was checking them. I think I've gotten most of them, if you notice anymore and feel like having me fix them to drive home how annoying it is, feel free . Regardless, hehe, thanks for reporting the problem; let me know if you spot any others so he won't constantly compound the problem. - Pwr905 03:30, December 19, 2009 (UTC) ::No problems with any terseness - I hadn't really noticed. :) I don't mind fixing anything I spot on my erratic and meandering travels, but just thought you might like to know. --vom 22:38, December 18, 2009 (UTC) Re: Citation needed Hi again! I was thinking, assuming we don't already have such a creature, would you and the other admins consider it worthwhile having a Wikipaedia-style "citation needed" tag to add to uncertain facts that need checking? I'm broadly in favour (otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it!), though I have some reservations about it, having seen some articles that are absolutely peppered with "citation needed" which ultimately just makes them hard to read. The thing is, we have a number of assertions that creep into articles that are hard to take at face value, some of which turn out to be perfectly correct and others which don't. Just thought it might be handy to have a means of tagging such paragraphs; and with the appropriate category, for creating a list of pages that could do with a closer look. But, I know how these things are, and sometimes the solution is more work than the problem. --vom 05:12, December 19, 2009 (UTC) :Sorry about the delay, just had to deal with the site logo being reverted again! But now that that's been dealt with, I would support the introduction of a citation needed tag as I've certainly seen things where I haven't been certain of the factual accuracy. Hopefully it won't be a issue with pages becoming cluttered as the game can serve as a source for most info, but for things like "The devs have said this", with no reference, a tag would be perfect. I'll go see what I can nick from Wikipedia. Loleil 05:52, December 19, 2009 (UTC) :Hmm creating a template to use in-line doesn't look like an easy task. I might see what our more technically minded users can do. Loleil 01:12, December 19, 2009 (UTC) ::Thanks for taking a look - I guess as long as it's not too indiscriminate in its application it could turn out to be quite useful. Though I suspect that comment was largely for my own benefit. I may also try my hand at something, though that's a rather bold statement from someone who doesn't know the first thing about wiki formatting! --vom 07:14, December 19, 2009 (UTC) :::Apparently it is an easy task and I was just missing one bit of code. Here it is feel free to have a bit of a play. Loleil 11:23, December 20, 2009 (UTC) ::::Great, thanks for that! I can see that being quite handy for getting odd-looking stuff checked out. --vom 12:50, December 20, 2009 (UTC) ::::But now seems just the right time for an untimely interjection! I think I need a (hopefully brief) break from self-appointed "recent changes patroller" - I think I realised I was getting a bit bogged down when I thought "something must be done" because someone had added a couple of extraneous wikilinks (while over-linking is definitely bad news be it for readability, performance or bot-indexing, this page really wasn't a problem), and I think if I'm going to put my mind to something, there's more creative uses than getting uptight about two links! But I pontificate where "I need a quick break" would have sufficed. --vom 14:55, December 20, 2009 (UTC) Edit Removed? I'm curious as to why my easter egg addition was removed when there are others just like it. You said you've visited Tamriel so you must be acquainted with the Grey Fox. Though he never had a bow, its a more obvious connection between the two games than the idiot who added the Helm of the Deep Delver ( a queer looking helmet to begin with) as a connection to the Helm of the Deep Delver. At least remove the one thats least likely to be an easter egg. I'm more of an editor to the Fallout 3 wiki, but when I do edit other wiki's, I don't appreciate having comments removed without reason when I add valid(or as the Orzammar Crier puts it,"Nothing I say is provably false.") information. -- 02:24, December 20, 2009 (UTC) : It was causing too much controversy: a lot of to-ing and fro-ing over whether it was a reference to Oblivion's Grey Fox, Zorro, Robin Hood and so forth. The consensus seemed to be that "fox" was simply too common a moniker to really be attributed to any specific source; the discussion page in question has more details about it. : I wouldn't feel too hard done by: there's various things I would be inclined to add myself, but most are similarly tenuous and it has tended to mushroom in terms of somewhat subjective references. It seems that the admins would prefer to keep it for very obvious references only, e.g. notes referring to the interminable lift rides in Mass Effect for instance. : For the record, I did leave a pointer to the relevant discussion in the edit history, but I guess that something more obvious might've helped. But you obviously feel passionate about making the wiki a better place, so why not register, stick around and help out! Just bear in mind that things do tend to get reverted. This happens to me too... much to my irritation. --vom 02:33, December 20, 2009 (UTC) Well, I actually am registered it's that I somehow got logged out in the process... I was thinking it might be Oblivion because Betheseda(my favorite game developer, but I scolded them on Rogue Warrior) and Bioware are somewhat rivals due to the likeness in their game genres. So I thought they might be referencing it. Either way its clear that The Fox's Bow is a reference to something most likely Oblivion, and maybe a slight not to Robin Hood, but not some random character in those Forgotten Realm books or what not. I guess I'm slightly hypocritical when I say that people are unwilling to except other people's opinions when the evidence is pretty clear.--FLaSHBaCK HaSH 02:58, December 20, 2009 (UTC) : There's still an ongoing discussion on the easter egg talk page about what might go in there; I'm inclined to side with the "definite and clear reference" approach rather than the circumstantial, but that said, I'm just another random editor and it's really the admins' decision. : I agree that there's a possibility they're related, but I think we'd need a Bioware employee to confirm it. There are what I consider to be even more obvious references: walk into Wade & Herren's emporium and you could be mistaken for feeling you'd taken a wrong turn and found your way to FO3's Rivet City armourers! But again there's nothing definite linking them, so as pleased with myself as I'd felt about spotting something new, it likewise stays out unless something more definite is forthcoming. : So whether it's that, or me thinking "Shianni has to be a reference to The Witcher's Shani", I have to bite my tongue on these occasions. : Think of the alternative: "Alistair wears armour and so does my favourite character in '300', it's obviously a reference"! : Anyway, I've little doubt there are various references to Oblivion there. I think that it's best to just enjoy the moment and wonder if it was deliberate. --vom 03:09, December 20, 2009 (UTC) Re: Potential reversion oopsie I was just about to revert this edit as being unnecessary (duplicate spoiler tag) when I realised several other recent edits I'd undone as being unencyclopaedic, overly emphasised, etc were by the same user. They needed doing, but I'm reluctant to proceed due to concern that it might seem I'm picking on them. Thoughts about what to do in such a situation? I'd hate to kill someone's enthusiasm, but a few contributions could do with being a little more polished... --vom 12:29, December 29, 2009 (UTC) :I certainly find removing other people's work one of the harder aspects of wiki editing, but I think you are doing the right thing. If you find a lot of edits that need fixing being made by one user it might be worth dropping them a note to let them know why you've reverted their edits. I always appreciate constructive criticism, but then again it is the internet so you never know . Loleil 00:11, December 30, 2009 (UTC) ::That's probably the best way ahead, now that you mention it. I'm finding it hard to resist the temptation to claim that I'm not in a position to do so because I lack the authority - but that's unconvincingly disingenuous, the real reason is because I lack the diplomatic skill, or at least the inclination to put it to the test! I'll think on it for a day or two and see if inspiration grabs me; an awful lot of his edits need backing out or cleaning up, however, and it's not nice to do so without any sort of comment. My own writing skills were certainly no better once upon a time, and I appreciated being told how to improve them - and I took a lot of telling. --vom 00:19, December 30, 2009 (UTC) :::I'll see if I can have look through this user's edits. Then, if you would like me to write a note to the user as well as, or instead of, yourself, I can test out my diplomacy too! Loleil 00:34, December 30, 2009 (UTC) ::::I hasten to add that I'm not trying to manoeuvre you into doing this for me, tempting though the idea is! I'll see what I can come up with once I've attained a slightly less marginal degree of wakefulness, though I may take you up on the offer of an additional comment in order to preempt any concerns they may have about me being a member of the local chapter of Grammar Irregulars... --vom 00:47, December 30, 2009 (UTC) :::::Well I've been a bit behind on doing this so far, due to having a somewhat crapulent couple of days. I'd like to put it down to over-eating... so I will! Anyway, I was thinking perhaps something along these lines - thought it might be an idea to run it by you first rather than just dump the comment on his or her talk page and hope for the best, though... ::::::Hi! Thanks for registering and contributing to the Dragon Age Wikia with such enthusiasm. As well as saying "hello" I also thought I should drop you a note because I've changed a number of your edits: as a general guideline, if you can aim for a more "encyclopaedic" style of writing, that would improve them no end; by which I don't mean dry to the point of being dessicated, but a more neutral style than adopted for the introduction to the "elves" article, for instance, and try not to over-emphasise a point, even if it is important. ::::::However, if this is taken as criticism at all, I want it to be of the constructive sort - your enthusiasm for improving the articles is appreciated! :::::You reckon that would be okay? Or too flippant? Too patronising? Too vague? I tend to avoid this sort of thing whenever possible, so it doesn't really come naturally! --vom 12:10, December 31, 2009 (UTC) :::::::Hehe I am somewhat overstuffed with fruitcake myself! As to your message, I think it's really good. I always try to put myself in the other person's shoes, and yes I would be disappointed to see my work reverted, but I would really appreciate seeing a friendly message explaining why, and what can be done to improve future edits. Very nicely done. Loleil 02:38, January 1, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::Well, for better or worse, it's done. Panic! --vom 14:03, January 1, 2010 (UTC) Re: The joy of overlinking I was about to drop a note on another user's talk page about the matter of over-linking, but thought I should run it by you first rather than attempt some random act of style enforcement that doesn't necessarily agree with policy. As regards excessive linking to articles, e.g. every occurrence of Morrigan in an article linking to her page, for instance, this is generally considered bad practice as far as I can tell - the usual reasons seem to be that it makes the articles rather less easy on the eye, takes up more resources, and may incur a penalty with search engines (though it's always hard to be certain about them...). There probably aren't hard and fast rules about this, like "only one link per article and it must be the first one", but you know it's got out of hand when every third word is a link to something! But, as with a lot of things, however I make my case, it is a subjective matter that's more dependent on the local policy than anything. And I guess before I get carried away with getting in a strop about it... what is the local policy? --vom 14:10, January 1, 2010 (UTC) :Ah you've reminded me, compiling a full page for site policy is another of my wiki resolutions. Anyhow, except on very long pages, where I think there is room for duplicate links, articles only need to be linked to once for the reasons you've already listed above . Loleil 01:03, January 2, 2010 (UTC) ::My new year's resolution involves not making too much work for myself - if I were you, I'd trawl the other Wiki(a)s and find a site policy that fits your requirements and swipe it! Anyway, I think it's best that I wait for such a thing to materialise before I get too excitable about anyone's link fetish. --vom 18:50, January 2, 2010 (UTC) :::Ah, plagiarism. Tempting! Loleil 01:17, January 5, 2010 (UTC) ::::I think plagiarism is an underrated pastime, personally. Unless I'm the, er, plagiaree? Almost as much fun as inventing nonsense words! :D But I do think it's a usefully stress-free approach to pick a set of rules that someone else has already done the necessary arguing about. --vom 01:57, January 5, 2010 (UTC) On broadly the same subject (well, inasmuch as being another "manual of style" type of thing) is the old chestnut of preferred spelling, the US/elsewhere dichotomy being a perennial cause of squabbling on Wikipaedia; I was reminded of this when I saw this edit, which does nothing other than change some spellings to that of its author's preferred locale. In a way it's almost tempting to say "stick with US spellings since that's what Bioware use" in order to prevent the antagonism inevitably caused by such things, even though I personally prefer non-US spellings; I think policies like Wikipedia's rather complex approach has shown itself to be unworkable, so I'm guessing that it's either that or "don't make unnecessary spelling changes". But I figure that it is the sort of thing that's probably better written down somewhere, as edits such as this one do tend to cause trouble. --vom 17:23, January 5, 2010 (UTC) Images Just wondering if you could take a look at this, please? I'm rather uncomfortable going to someone else about it, but the admin who made the decision seems to have bowed out of that conversation leaving it unresolved. --vom 10:26, January 9, 2010 (UTC) Welcome Back Nice to have you and your wonderful clean-up powers back in action . 14:02, April 25, 2010 (UTC) : Thank you! I'll even try not to leave a trail of destruction in the process. --vom 14:09, April 25, 2010 (UTC)